What a lovely headline

[Inuca]

Kerry becomes de facto diplomat for Obama
Senator ascends to global adviser on issues that could reshape U.S. image
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33420488/ns/politics-white_house/

Did not read the article yet, going to right now, but what a nice thing to see on the first page I opened for my first (turkish) coffee sip in the morning! YAYYY!!! :bounce: :toast: (is there a smiley for dancing with joy inside your head? or is a visit to the doctor advisable in such cases?)

[karynnj]

1. I liked the article, but many here were sensitive to

other articles that referred to de facto Secretary of State. The article actually just reports what has been a fact since before Obama took office. Kerry did informally represent Obama at Poznan and in several countries in the Near East and South Asia, including India and Pakistan in the wake of the Mumbai bombings. This week's diplomacy was simply too big and too key not to get mentioned and it is interesting that many articles have mentioned the earlier work with Syria.

I think that many comments on that thread were too defensive about the reality that Kerry's role really has been far beyond the normal role of the chair of the SFRC. I can't think of any diplomacy of similar magnitude done by the very capable Senator Lugar or McCain (the chair of Armed Services then) for Bush. Not to mention, all the examples I site here ( http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8710134&mesg_id=8710612 ) all were done with minimal media coverage, so the asinine comments that he is "making sure it is known" are uncalled for - it simply was too front and center on the major foreign policy issue. (imagine what Schumer or Gillibrand would have done with this or the unqualified praise that either Clinton would have gotten.

I do understand that anything that tries to create a Clinton/Kerry rivalry in real or simply among supporters in the blogosphere is beyond counterproductive. Kerry's strong smack down to that was fantastic and Beachmom posting it here was also fantastic. It would have been smart of Clinton to add her own praise to Obama's to proactively make this harder. In addition focus on Senator Kerry would be better than focusing on the fact that either Holbrooke or Clinton likely should have been there since the fraud question arose a few weeks ago. They are in DC in the WH meeting - though they could have been there remotely as Clinton was from Russia. This left just Eikenberry, who was the one who pulled Kerry in.

Another thing to consider is that no one argued that Bill Clinton was taking over his wife's role when he went to NK. There was simply universal praise for him. Now, I am not equating the two, as a Bloomberg artice wrongly did, this is far more significant and important to our national interests and required a lot more diplomacy. Many people in government or outside it have done the type of visit that gets these high profile releases of Americans. Many people on Prosense's thread gave many examples of past diplomacy by Kerry, even under Republican Presidents.

But, the fact is this is a moment when Kerry's long, hard work building relationships led to him being of enormous service partially by being in the right place at the right time. I agree that it is important to point out that Clinton approved of this and was constantly in touch and Kerry did respect the hierarchy rather than free lancing (or possibly worse, dealing directly with the President.) Knowing how I reacted to one article that said Kerry should be considered for replacing Holbrooke or even HRC, I think I know how the Clinton people likely feel when there is any hint that articles are saying that at a de facto level Kerry is doing HRC's job (and with excellent results .. in his spare time as a US Senator) These are obviously not parallel, but the similarity is the idea that it under estimates Kerry's or Hillary's value and importance.

I don't think that we need to be so defensive when Kerry finally gets some credit for the genuinely important accomplishments he has made.

here is the GD-P thread - http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8710134

[beachmom]

2. Well, perhaps I was held captive by Joe Biden, who talked

about things he had done in Bosnia as the Chairman.

You may be right that this IS extraordinary.

But as much as I like the praise, I don't want Hillary to feel sleighted, and then therefore, less cooperative with Kerry in the future. He did a good job in the press conference yesterday in deflecting that kind of talk, and I assume in person he and Hillary had a good conversation. I really hope there aren't hurt feelings, because the stakes in Af/Pak are too high for that.

[karynnj]

3. I agree that it would be better if Clinton does not feel slighted

There is also no reason for hurt feelings. Nothing he or the people around him have said has been anything other than as positive as possible.

I don't think that Biden did anything like the diplomatic accomplishments Kerry had with Afghanistan, Syria, and Sudan where he was credited with getting a change on the status quo that the administration wanted.

I had tried to figure out during the primaries if he were exaggerating and it seemed there was some of that. What Biden did was to be one of the first to speak out against the Serbs actions in Bosnia. He has early speeches calling for lifting the arms embargo in Bosnia and bombing Serbia to end the genocide and wrote a detailed proposal. He argued for this as early as 1992 and it was not implemented until 1995. When the legislation actually passed it was Dole and Lieberman leading.

The NYT addressed his comments in the general election debate here. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/06/AR2008100602681.html?sid=ST2008100603030 ) Nothing is said here of him being involved in the diplomacy. There is no way that he could have been after he called Milosevic a "damned war criminal".

[wisteria]

5. Oh no, we don't want to slight Clinton. We have to make her feel in charge of the process.

My feelings about Clinton are well known and I think she has so far been a very mediocre SOS, mostly because this is not what she is best at doing and it shows. But, she is in charge and is due some respect for holding this position. I think it is very interesting how many in the press are scrambling to make a point of letting everyone know she had a role in all of this. What power this woman must hold that the press does not want to make her angry.

[blm]

9. I expect Kerry would be mindful of slighting any Dem, especially the PRdriven Clintons

And I also expect he is being overly generous in the credit he gives her and others, because he has ALWAYS done that during his entire career in the Senate.

[wisteria]

12. Yes, this is what I am alluding to. To read the news today she was the brilliant mastermind behind

all of this-making it look like she allowed Kerry to receive some credit after throwing him a bone.

[karynnj]

4. Here's an article that handles HRC and JK perfectly

And in case there are any doubts, these developments do not point to tensions between Kerry and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Just the opposite -- David Rogers reported that the two worked together on this: "Clinton, as secretary of state, helped clear the way with a long call to Karzai but also gave Kerry the room to run. And the result -- Karzai's agreement to hold a runoff election next month -- was a joint triumph for the onetime rivals."

http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/143440/john_kerry_delivers_in_afghanistan/

[wisteria]

6. Personally, I think her role in all of this is being purposely over blown.

I would consider it a team effort, but not a joint triumph. Senator Kerry did the leg work and the diplomacy. She made some calls.

[karynnj]

7. I kind of diagree

All the stories make it clear the importance of what was accomplished and that Kerry succeeded after many had failed. The Independent (UK paper), put it this way":

If John Kerry had not gone to Kabul, it is possible that the Afghan picture would look very different. The Senator for Massachusetts huddled with Barack Obama back in Washington yesterday, telling reporters later that a decision on troop numbers before the election results were clear would lack "common sense". It seem likely that his views will be taken seriously by Obama: details of the role he played in persuading President Hamid Karzai to accept a run-off vote began to emerge yesterday, and suggested that his influence was critical in the Americans getting the result they wanted.

Karzai had been subjected to telephone calls from world leaders, UN entreaties, and pressure from the international body charged with validating the results; in the end, though, the decisive factor for Mr Karzai was a quiet walk in the palace gardens with Mr Kerry, accompanied by reminiscences of the travails of losing an election to George Bush.

Here, they gave Clinton the most positive credit for what she did. (I wonder if it was at Eikenberry's suggestion.) But the fact is that she gave Eikenberry the green light to let Kerry work this. (This was important as Kerry has always respected the line between what he can do as a Senator and what he can to with administration support.)

It was secretary of state Hillary Clinton who connected the dots last week between a long-planned trip by Kerry to the region and the possibility of a crisis if President Karzai resisted calls for a run-off. She sent an official to brief him on what he might do before he left. On Friday night, Kerry was eating dinner with troops in Kabul when the US ambassador, Karl Eikenberry, told him that Mr Karzai was indeed showing signs of balking at the findings of the voting commission. It was agreed the two would pay a surprise visit to Karzai's palace that night.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/the-accidental-diplomat-in-kabul-1806891.html

I don't know where their information on the timing came from and I would assume it would be very likely that Kerry was briefed before he left on the status - that seemed common procedure even when Bush was in office.

The point is this is good. Clinton comes across as a competent manager, but the triumph was Kerry's. Many people had worked this and all of them had a part - but by every account Kerry's presence was key.

[wisteria]

8. Who are the sources on this. And, my main point was this was a team effort

not a 50-50 shared deal between Clinton and Kerry. Of course there is a vested interest in making her look as competent as possible. As I said, she made phone calls, Kerry did all the most important, heavy and hard work.
There is an effort to push the idea that Clinton headed and ran this whole affair and Kerry was only "permitted" to do this because Madame Clinton allowed it. Frankly, this was her job not his to do, and she did nothing but make phone calls. This proves Clinton is not a workhorse, but a true show horse. Even after all his efforts she has to be seen as the top dog, the one who really deserves the credit, but she has allowed some praise of Kerry's efforts, how kind of her. She is a phony and I wish someday she will be recognized as such.
This is not to say that I do not understand why she must be appeased and given credit for this, it is better for everyone all around that the public perception has her in charge and in command. But, I long for the day when she no longer is in the spotlight. And, some of the daily news cycles are really laying her role in all of this on thick.

[karynnj]

10. I said nothing of it being 50/50

I said that Kerry is getting the lion's hare of the agreement. I thing Holbrooke was the source of some of the information. In addition it is in sync with Kerry's comment. It is true that Kerry could not have done this without the administration's support.

[wisteria]

11. In recent press reports, Kerry isn't getting the "lion's hare", he has become a player

in a larger effort all thought-out,coordinated and deployed by Clinton. Do you believe this to be true? I don't. And, regarding the administration's support, I have no doubt about that. He needed that to proceed without being viewed as taking matters into his own hands-something I am certain Senator Kerry would never do. He would never undermine this administration on anything. I am not saying Clinton had no role, I am saying that role is now being overblown. However, Politico seems to be the biggest pusher of this idea. So perhaps, I am over reacting. Politico is usually no better then tabloid trash papers.

[karynnj]

13. Politico seems pretty alone on that in the American media

Kerry's peers very clearly were impressed. Reid's comments were effusive and clearly not simply perfunctory. In addition, I have been watching the NATO hearing. What is clear is that his peers are clearly impressed. Lugar's comments showed his real respect and, for lack of a better word, fondness for Kerry, he called it remarkable diplomacy and praised his stamina in being there - when Kerry said "in body", his response was "in spirit and wisdom". Senator Corker spoke of being proud of and for Kerry and said he had expected a standing ovation when he came in.

Madeline Albright called it creative and successful when she spoke and her there was an unusual softness to her voice. Given that the topic was NATO, Afghanistan did come up and it was very clear Albright had a huge anmount of respect for the chairman.

In addition, apparently he will give a speech on Afghanistan tomorrow at the CFR tomorrow (the article is UK which explains "today"). http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article6886253.ece Like Tay Tay and Beachmom say he can't be the Obama point person, because he is a Senator and is not in the executive branch. What is clear is that here and internationally, Kerry is getting a lot of credit both on this diplomacy and on being one of the people Obama is listeninng to on Afghanistan.

Nothing will go smoothly in Afghanistan, but if this leads to a "good enough" government, likely with Kharzi leading it, this could be the real turning point where things begin to move in the right direction. If so, the foreign policy establishment, here and internationally, will not be reading Politico to define who helped make this possible. The editor of Politico is John Harris, the man who wrote a book that praised what Matt Drudge did in the 2004 election - which was to completely fabricate a story, quotes and all.

[blm]

14. Politico also pushed heyjohn on DAY ONE. Harris had Bill Clinton praise and endorse his book on the

jacket cover as I recall.

Nothing is coincidence with certain groups of people.

[karynnj]

15. Bill Clinton endorsed it???

That is pathetic. I read the free online chapter back then. The entire chapter was about how Drudge and the RNC turned Kerry's hair into a liability - per Harris anyway. They found that Kerry went to an exclusive haircutter. They then made up a story of him spending $1000 to get his hair colored, highlighted, and styled, complete with quotes from non-existent stylists on how fussy he was that it had to be "perfect". (All I know is that in person, his hair is all one color - silver. I think the different colors in pictures is caused by shadows and reflecting light. )

As soon as Drudge put it out, the Kerry campaign and the hair cutting place both said it was a $75 hair cut period - not $1000 and that everything else was false - and got it out immediately. This was in the place where Drudge was compared to Murrow.

When I went to the book event (and met some other people here), Teresa was asked about an obnoxious quote from the book trashing JK's campaign. At first she demurred, then when prodded by Rose speaking of her being opinionated, Teresa beautifully and eloquently praised what Kerry did and stood for in the campaign, then very politely said that she was sorry for Harris, if all he saw in the campaign was what not to do. I really wished that would have been taped because she was brilliant and it was absolutely clear how heart felt for praise for her husband was and the depth of her contempt for Harris. Let's just say Teresa and John Kerry are not friends of Harris.

[wisteria]

16. Thanks for the history on Harris and about Politico. Now it all fits together.

You have to wonder though, why the Clinton's would want to associate with someone like this?

[blm]

18. I remember when Kos had the ad for that book on the Home Page -

That is where I saw the praise from Clinton. That would have been in 2006. The cyber-bookjacket ads were probably targeted for GOPfriendly and Demfriendly sites, so the Clinton praise was probably only used at Dem sites.

[wisteria]

17. Wow, what an on-line rag. n/t